Do you buy into the narrative of Joe Montana's "unblemished Super Bowl record" vs. Brady?

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

A Conference Championship is a great accomplishment, no matter how much it stings when you lose the Super Bowl. They even have a trophy for it. Brady has six conference championships. In any sane world, six conference championships trumps four conference championships. Granted, Montana was the better "Super Bowl performer" if you rather weight those games with an incredible amount meaning, rather than seeing them as part of the picture - maybe the most important one - but clearly not the only way to measure a quarterback's performance and legacy.

Of course, Forty-Niners and Brady haters now consider the true gauge of a quarterback to be only the sum of his Super Bowl performances and nothing else...pretty silly, and the exact opposite of what they said when Tom was 3-0.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

I've come to learn the only time 4 is greater than 6 is when people try to make the case that Montana is better because he went to 4 SB and Brady went to 6 SB

Apparently to them it's better to not make the playoffs or lose in the playoffs than make it to the SB and lose.

It's more than simply not losing a Super Bowl. Montana played remarkably well in his four Super Bowl starts - arguably better than Brady. And to show for it, he has the highest career passing rating out of any quarterback making multiple starts in the Super Bowl...and he never recorded a loss. Hence, him being "unblemished" and "perfect"

I agree w/ you. It's mostly a myth to downplay Brady's longevity and success....but it's a pretty hard one to dispel...the only thing Brady can do, of course, is to find a way to win Ring #5. Once he does that...it pretty much ends the conversation for good

 

[RobertWeathers]

Obviously I am biased but I think there is one solid argument to be made to balance out the stat comparison in Super Bowls for Montana and Brady.

There was no parity in the NFL and the AFC was the decidedly inferior conference back then and therefore there wasn't a whole lot of competition for Joe Cool in the big game. I think that puts Joe's Super Bowl stat line into a little perspective.

Brady on the other hand played at least 5 really great NFC opponents in the SB. 6 if you count the 2011 Giants as a great team. Forget the noise that they only won their Super Bowls by 3 or 4 points... that's because Brady had to beat one of if not THE best team in the league in the Super Bowl.

I disagree. You can easily argue the league wasn't watered down in the 80s and if you were a #1 seed you were a damn good team. With that said I think the NFL was a physcially tougher conference and it took NFC coaches like Shanny and BB to get the AFC to play at that level.

The 2001 Rams and the 2004 Iggles were very good teams.

2003 Carolina? Meh.

2007 and 2011 G'ints? Meh. Those were shoulda woulda couldas

For Joe Cool , 81 and 88 Bungles were 1 seed teams. 14-2 MIA was a #1 seed w a HoF QB. 1989 Donkeys were a #1 seed w/a HoF QB.

88 Bungles had a ton of chances to win that game. Walsh and Wyche knew each other's offenses which is why it was so low scoring.

 

[Wheelman]

Not sure why interceptions are in this...it's idiotic to say it's better to lose in the playoffs earlier or miss it all together than to lose the big game.

Because it's that idiot Shannon Sharpe who said that after Lombardi left and Cromartie came in to talk about Brady on that link of Michael Lombardi giving Fisher the business.

 

[AtomicDawg]

Brady at least waited till the Super Bowl to lose to the Giants. Montana is 1-3 against the NYG in the playoffs including 2 one and dones.

And one and done in back to back years against PHIL SIMMS.

 

[BradytoMosstoGronk]

So, from when he took over until 2015 (can't really use an unfinished season), 6 super bowl appearances. 15 seasons, 40% of those Super Bowls featuring the Patriots... Yes, Joe was the man, but we're in uncharted waters here. With Brady as the QB, you can almost always expect a conference championship appearance. We're almost seeing the opportunity to appear in the big game being trivialized because this team is either there, or should have been, almost every year.

You won't ever see this again... and as special as Montana was, he didn't take his team 6 times, and we're still talking about knocking on the door a seventh (with one QB)! Getting the opportunity this often is, in my opinion, so much more enjoyable. I think a female co-worker said it best about how things are now (she's not into sports at all):

Aren't the Patriots in the super bowl like every year?

 

[BradyFTW!]

This argument is predicated on the idea that missing the playoffs entirely is better than making the Super Bowl and losing. And since that's so obviously untrue that it should be self-evident, no, I don't bye the "unblemished Super Bowl record" argument.

 

[sb1]

I disagree. You can easily argue the league wasn't watered down in the 80s and if you were a #1 seed you were a damn good team. With that said I think the NFL was a physcially tougher conference and it took NFC coaches like Shanny and BB to get the AFC to play at that level.

The 2001 Rams and the 2004 Iggles were very good teams.

2003 Carolina? Meh.

2007 and 2011 G'ints? Meh. Those were shoulda woulda couldas

For Joe Cool , 81 and 88 Bungles were 1 seed teams. 14-2 MIA was a #1 seed w a HoF QB. 1989 Donkeys were a #1 seed w/a HoF QB.

88 Bungles had a ton of chances to win that game. Walsh and Wyche knew each other's offenses which is why it was so low scoring.

Very true that they were more physical but there was still an undeniable gap between the two conferences back then. Facing the #1 AFC Team was just not the same as facing the #1 NFC team and it's hard to put a ton of stock in those records because of that. Look at the 90's Bills... they rolled through the AFC but except for the wide right game they looked like they had no business being in the Super Bowl. And look at Super Bowl 20. That was a reflection of the way it was. Also, neither the 81 nor 88 Bengals were top 10 in scoring defense that year.

I still think the 03 Panthers were a great team with only a meh QB. I would call the Giants great - at least the 07 Giants with a defense that played as great as you possibly could when it counted most. The point is, Brady didn't get a "break" with any of his opponents. There was no 2006 Bears or 2005 Seahawks or 2008 Cardinals or 2012 49ers or the paper kitties last year. He legit flat out beat great team after great team. Montana put up those "perfect" stats against the very best teams that the inferior AFC had to offer.

 

[BTTA]

I'd like my name entered into the poll, please, along with Montana and Brady. I am the standard for NFL perfection, having never lost a playoff game or Super Bowl.

 

[BobDigital]

Better to get there and lose than not get there.

Montana still great #2 all time IMO.

 

[Pessimistic Pete]

One of the dumbest arguments ever.

I heard bozo Mike Francessa say Bill Belichick can NEVER surpass Tom Landry as a coach because Bill has lost 2 SBs and Tom NEVUH lost a SB. He also uses Super Bowl net points as criteria.

Yes, he believes going 2-0 in the SB is more impressive than 4-2.

 

[Ring 6]

Given that Tom Brady has the highest winning percentage AND the highest total career wins of any QB in NFL history, I wonder how you feel about Joe Montana's Super Bowl record. Would you consider Montana's Super Bowl record superior to Brady's? If so, is that enough to make Joe Cool the GOAT?

The narrative says that Montanna was simply perfect when it came to the biggest games of his career. Not simply because of him never losing a Super Bowl, but also.....never committing a turnover or interception! In fact, Joe Montana has the highest career passer rating of any NFL quarterback starting in the Super Bowl.

In his four Super Bowl starts, Joe Montana went 4-0 and completed 83 of 122 passes for 1,142 yards and 11 touchdowns with no interceptions, earning him passer rating of 127.8

If you buy into the notion of perfection or having an unblemished record, than I suppose it'd be hard to argue against this. However, I think you have to take into account how ccompetetive those Super Bowl wins were.

It's a lot easier to avoid interceptions when your blowing out your opponent. But for Brady, nearly all of his Super Bowl appearances have been close, tight affairs going into the fourth quarter. I wonder if Montana advocate are making too much of this stat line. What do you think?

Losing in an earlier round is not better than winning in an earlier round.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

I'd like my name entered into the poll, please, along with Montana and Brady. I am the standard for NFL perfection, having never lost a playoff game or Super Bowl.

 

[Gumby]

This argument is predicated on the idea that missing the playoffs entirely is better than making the Super Bowl and losing. And since that's so obviously untrue that it should be self-evident, no, I don't bye the "unblemished Super Bowl record" argument.

Yours was also a Good way of saying what I was about to: TB has only missed playoffs in ONE (starter) year of his career (2002). That is damn hard record of consistency for anyone to measure against even joe.

Joe's records are exceptional. Tom's records are exceptional. I could see it being a tough decision if you said for just one game, which guy do you want? Otherwise, if you want a whole season, clearly TB and anything more than one game IMO clearly TB.

But, on other hand, I don't like the 'don't count tom's ints because he played in tighter games' arguments some said earlier. Is that chicken or the egg? INT is worth ~4 pts I think. If you only won or lost by 3, maybe that int was the difference in why game was tight or lost. That safety against the gints, even if it shouldn't have been called, could have been thrown better by Tom to not get that call. That was 2 pts+ right there. So those were costly miscues.

And the but back in Brady's direction: how many SBs did Joe have key OL men go down in 1Q or lose his biggest off weapon in weeks prior/during that game itself. I don't recall that kind of thing, but I wasn't a SF fan so didn't follow them that close either.

 

[Ring 6]

Montana was terrific, pretty silly to argue otherwise, and his Super Bowl track record even more so. But 1) Brady's not done yet; and 2) even at this point it's hard to argue against Brady for the reasons already cited--salary cap era, etc., and he got there 50% more times, and counting.

But for those who want to argue against Brady, they'll be able to in a legalistic sense. Both 4 Super Bowls, one of them is undefeated.

If Brady gets to 5, of course....there's no way to say anyone else has as many.

There is simply no legitimate argument that going to 4 SBs and getting eliminated earlier in the other 2 years and winning 4 SBs is better than going to 6 SBs and winning 4.

And that is truly what happened.
Montana is 16-7 in playoffs
4 times won SB
7 times didn't get there

Brady is 22-9
4 times won SB
7 times didn't get there
2 times got there and lost

 

[SammyBlueCat]

Brady aint' done yet...

 

[aluminum seats]

There is simply no legitimate argument that going to 4 SBs and getting eliminated earlier in the other 2 years and winning 4 SBs is better than going to 6 SBs and winning 4.

And that is truly what happened.
Montana is 16-7 in playoffs
4 times won SB
7 times didn't get there

Brady is 22-9
4 times won SB
7 times didn't get there
2 times got there and lost

I agree. The argument that the Montana backers make is to say that Montana's Super Bowl performances are superior to Brady's.

 

[aluminum seats]

One of the dumbest arguments ever.

I heard bozo Mike Francessa say Bill Belichick can NEVER surpass Tom Landry as a coach because Bill has lost 2 SBs and Tom NEVUH lost a SB. He also uses Super Bowl net points as criteria.

Yes, he believes going 2-0 in the SB is more impressive than 4-2.

Right, I've heard the fat blowhard make the same point, and a similar point about Manning vs. Brady. He hates Belichick, so has to tie himself into knots from time to time.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Very true that they were more physical but there was still an undeniable gap between the two conferences back then. Facing the #1 AFC Team was just not the same as facing the #1 NFC team and it's hard to put a ton of stock in those records because of that. Look at the 90's Bills... they rolled through the AFC but except for the wide right game they looked like they had no business being in the Super Bowl. And look at Super Bowl 20. That was a reflection of the way it was. Also, neither the 81 nor 88 Bengals were top 10 in scoring defense that year.

I grew up in the 80s and every Super Bowl outcome was pretty much known before the coin toss. Even 83 Skins/Raiders. The toughest, more physical team always won. I just dont necessarily think the 49ers faced cupcake teams. After all, the 81 and 88 SBs were close. The ones vs the Fins and DEN Joe just reached "The Zone". I don't think the 85 Bears or the 2013 Seahawks could have stopped those offenses. They were hell on wheels.

I still think the 03 Panthers were a great team with a meh QB. I would call the Giants great - at least the 07 Giants with a defense that played as great as you possibly could when it counted most. The point is, Brady didn't get a "break" with any of his opponents. There was no 2006 Bears or 2005 Seahawks or 2008 Cardinals or 2012 49ers or the paper kitties last year. He legit flat out beat great team after great team. Montana put up those "perfect" stats against the very best teams that the inferior AFC had to offer.

Agree 100% on Brady not getting breaks. They were all hard fought games. In retrospect, while Delhomme was an ave QB, he had a ton of offensive and defensive talent surrounding him.

I'd kill for a 49-10 Super Bowl where Brady just goes off. Make the evening a little more relaxing than these heart-attack games .

 

[PatsDeb]

No. He may have won every one he got to, but he didn't get to as many as Brady. Montana should get over himself.